3 ms·

Obama Administration Comes Out Against SOPA, PIPA

17 points by llambda 15y ago

joelgrus 15y ago
I don't see anywhere in the statement where they say they're "against" the bills. They express some concerns, but they leave themselves a ton of room to support slightly modified versions.
- phaus 15y ago
  Exactly. The only thing that I got out of the article was that they are opposed to making themselves look bad. The only politicians and companies that can be trusted when they say that they oppose SOPA are the ones who opposed it from the start. If normal citizens hadn't started the SOPA awareness campaign then SOPA would have been passed already. The rest of these people are just jumping on a bandwagon to save themselves some bad publicity. People need to realize that every single politician who decided to oppose SOPA only after the public applied pressure is a liar. These people supported SOPA with full knowledge of what it would do to the internet. The Obama administration has a ton of people who got to where they are because of the entertainment industry lobbyists. The next administration will too.
sudonim 15y ago
I disagree wholeheartedly with that statement. From my post http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3464849 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3464849 in another thread on this: It reads to me like a lot of agreeing with SOPA opposition: "We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet." But then tries to jam in: "That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders" No! The internet has no borders. American laws and "rights" don't apply outside of the United States. That's why the United States tortures people outside of the US. You can't say that US law applies to copying MP3s, but not torture. That's why if you read between the lines, the response is not saying "We agree with you.", it's saying "I'll get you next time, Gadget, next time."
- phaus 15y ago
  They interrogate and torture people in other countries because that is where they find them. There wouldn't be any point in sending someone back to the states. The conflict is in the middle east. Therefore the people we need information from are usually in the middle east. When the U.S. government tortures someone in a different country, it is still illegal. U.S. Government employees are bound by U.S. Law no matter where they are. If you are a member of the military you are actually bound by the UCMJ as well as U.S. law. It has nothing to do with the location.
  - sudonim 15y ago
    My bit was a little off-topic, but you should look up extraordinary rendition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_... It almost always involves abducting someone from a country and taking them to another country. If it didn't have anything to do with location, then why would they do that?
    - phaus 15y ago
      I stand corrected. If I am understanding this correctly it seems like they are getting the other countries to torture suspects for them, so they can feign ignorance. If the military or CIA were to personally torture people in these countries they might not get caught, but they would still be in violation of U.S. law. Thanks for linking the article. Whenever I had heard people complaining about the torture of terrorists I always assumed they were talking solely about the incidents taking place in Iraq/Afghanistan. This was eye-opening.

17 points by llambda 15y ago

I don't see anywhere in the statement where they say they're "against" the bills. They express some concerns, but they leave themselves a ton of room to support slightly modified versions.

phaus 15y ago
Exactly. The only thing that I got out of the article was that they are opposed to making themselves look bad. The only politicians and companies that can be trusted when they say that they oppose SOPA are the ones who opposed it from the start. If normal citizens hadn't started the SOPA awareness campaign then SOPA would have been passed already. The rest of these people are just jumping on a bandwagon to save themselves some bad publicity. People need to realize that every single politician who decided to oppose SOPA only after the public applied pressure is a liar. These people supported SOPA with full knowledge of what it would do to the internet. The Obama administration has a ton of people who got to where they are because of the entertainment industry lobbyists. The next administration will too.

sudonim 15y ago

I disagree wholeheartedly with that statement. From my post http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3464849 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3464849 in another thread on this: It reads to me like a lot of agreeing with SOPA opposition: "We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet." But then tries to jam in: "That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders" No! The internet has no borders. American laws and "rights" don't apply outside of the United States. That's why the United States tortures people outside of the US. You can't say that US law applies to copying MP3s, but not torture. That's why if you read between the lines, the response is not saying "We agree with you.", it's saying "I'll get you next time, Gadget, next time."

phaus 15y ago
They interrogate and torture people in other countries because that is where they find them. There wouldn't be any point in sending someone back to the states. The conflict is in the middle east. Therefore the people we need information from are usually in the middle east. When the U.S. government tortures someone in a different country, it is still illegal. U.S. Government employees are bound by U.S. Law no matter where they are. If you are a member of the military you are actually bound by the UCMJ as well as U.S. law. It has nothing to do with the location.
- sudonim 15y ago
  My bit was a little off-topic, but you should look up extraordinary rendition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_... It almost always involves abducting someone from a country and taking them to another country. If it didn't have anything to do with location, then why would they do that?
  - phaus 15y ago
    I stand corrected. If I am understanding this correctly it seems like they are getting the other countries to torture suspects for them, so they can feign ignorance. If the military or CIA were to personally torture people in these countries they might not get caught, but they would still be in violation of U.S. law. Thanks for linking the article. Whenever I had heard people complaining about the torture of terrorists I always assumed they were talking solely about the incidents taking place in Iraq/Afghanistan. This was eye-opening.